Urning & Urningin

Urning & Urningin (pronounced ern-ing & ern-ings)

A male homosexual person (obsolete, and when used should be in the historic context of the original meaning, a technically differentiated sense of homosexuals as a “third sex” rather than a variation of the spectrum within the (then) existing two).  The equivalent feminine form was urningin.

1864: From the German Urning (a male homosexual constructed as a third sex (Uranian), the related form being Urnigtum (homosexuality), referring Aphrodite (Ūrania), coined by the German writer Karl Heinrich Ulrichs (1825–1895) in 1864.  By the early twentieth century, except among some writers in German, the word in this sense had largely been supplanted by homosexual.  The link to Aphrodite lies in Plato’s Symposium (circa 385–370 BC), where the goddess Aphrodite, in her heavenly aspect (Ūrania), is described as inspiring a noble form of affection between older and younger men.  In Greek and Roman mythology, what’s described as “the heavenly aspect of Aphrodite, the Greek goddess of beauty and love, Ūrania (and her Roman counterpart Venus) is contrasted with the earthly aspect known as Aphrodite.  Ūrania is also the muse of astronomy.

Originally used by astrologers and astronomers, uranian is now rare, used only poetically.  It was from the Latin Ūrania (the muse of astronomy in Greek mythology) +‎ -an (the suffix forming agent nouns).  Ūrania was from the Ancient Greek Οὐρᾰνῐ́ᾱ (Ouraníā) (muse of astronomy), from οὐράνιος (ouránios) (of or relating to the sky, celestial, heavenly) (from οὐρανός (ouranós) (the sky; heaven, home of the gods; the universe) and probably ultimately from the primitive Indo-European hwers- (rain) + -ιος (-ios), the suffix forming adjectives meaning (pertaining to).  Uranical is equally rare.

When writing now of homosexuality, uranism should be described as a particular historical construct.  The suggestion in 1864 was that the Urning (male) and the Urningin (female) homosexuals should be regarded as a third sex, not on any spectrum within the then-accepted binary division of gender.  Despite that, it was an interesting anticipation of the later notion(s) of gender fluidity in that it it encompassed the idea of something feminine inherently within the male body and vice versa.

Psychopathia Sexualis

In English, urning seems to have become widely discussed in the medical profession after it appeared to be in Charles Chaddock's 1892 translation of the impressively titled Psychopathia Sexualis: eine Klinisch-Forensische Studie (Sexual Psychopathy: A Clinical-Forensic Study, also known as Psychopathia Sexualis, with Especial Reference to the Antipathetic Sexual Instinct: A Medico-forensic Study), published in 1886, a book by an Austro-German psychiatrist with a name of similarly imposing length, Richard Fridolin Joseph Freiherr Krafft von Festenberg auf Frohnberg, genannt von Ebing (1840–1902), work and author respectively cited usually as the more manageable Psychopathia Sexualis by Richard Freiherr von Krafft-Ebing.

In his translation, US neurologist Charles Chaddock (1861–1936) set a couple of landmarks in English, one being apparently the first instance in print of the word “bisexual” being used in the sense of humans being sexually attracted to both women and men.  Prior to that "bisexual" was used either to refer to hermaphroditic plants (ie those with both male and female reproductive structures), or to mixed-sex schools (ie co-ed(ucational)) or other institutions, an instance of how meaning-shifts in language can make difficult the reading of historic texts.

Psychopathia Sexualis wasn’t the first publication to explore the topic but the scale and breadth of approach to sexual pathology makes it one of the seminal works in the field.  Although covering a wide range of paraphilias, it was notable for a then quite novel focus on male homosexuality (hence the "antipathetic instinct" in the subtitle).and introduced the newly coined terms "sadism and masochism".  Very much a book of its time, von Krafft-Ebing writings reflected the views of the medical mainstream, distilling Karl Ulrichs' Urning (1825–1895) theory with Bénédict Morel's (1809–1873) theory of degeneration (a handy model for frustrated psychiatrists, degeneration theory held there were psychological which were genetic and could not be cured by a psychiatrist; it could be used to explain any psychological condition).

Nor was there any unanimity of opinion within the profession but the book was influential in psychiatry for decades and it wasn’t until 1973, in preparation for the publication in 1974 of a seventh printing of the second edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-II (1968)) that homosexuality ceased to be listed as a category of disorder although the revision was less than activists had hoped, the diagnosis instead becoming a "sexual orientation disturbance".  In the DSM-III (1980), it was again re-classified but it wasn’t until that volume was revised (DSM III-R) in 1987 that homosexuality ceased to be a treatable condition, a position which, in the West, would not everywhere for some years be reflected in legislation.

Aphrodite (1887), oil on canvas by Robert Fowler (1853–1926).

In Europe, one stream of the dissent against prevailing orthodoxy is traced to the mid-nineteenth century writings of Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, a proto gay rights activist trained in law, theology, and history.  Using the nom-de-plume Numa Numantius, during the 1860s, he issued a number of political pamphlets asserting something with strands of the modern view: that some men were born with the spirit of a woman trapped in their bodies, these men constituting a third sex which, in 1864, he named urnings and that those we would now call a lesbians were urningin, a man’s spirit trapped in the body of a woman.  His theories gained little public support but he wasn’t entirely isolated.  In 1869, Hungarian journalist Károli Mária Kertbeny coined the terms “homosexual” and “homosexuality” in a political treatise against the Prussian penal code which criminalized the behavior among men, arguing the condition was inborn and unchangeable, one of many normal variations in the human condition.

Richard von Krafft-Ebing, reviewed the literature and synthesised.  Describing homosexuality as a “degenerative” disorder, he adopted Kertbeny’s terminology, but not his notion of the normal; in Psychopathia Sexualis he viewed unconventional sexual behaviors through the lens of nineteenth century Darwinian theory: non-procreative sexual behaviors, masturbation included, were forms of psychopathology and his most intriguing mix of ancient and modern was that in being born with a homosexual predisposition ("born like this" in the 21C vernacular), the victim was a victim of congenital disease.  His views of homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder were influential but even those who disagreed cemented the linguistic legacy, term “homosexual” quickly adopted as the standard term in the medical lexicon.  After the publication of Psychopathia Sexualis, views on the mater coalesced but prevailing opinion shifted little.  In opposition von Krafft-Ebing, German psychiatrist Magnus Hirschfeld (1868–1935) emerged as a neo-Urlichian, publishing and lecturing in support of a normative view of homosexuality and underground movements existed in many cities, some tolerated. 

It was the founder of psychoanalysis, Austrian neurologist Sigmund Freud (1856–1939), who offered the theory which would capture the popular imagination.  Disagreeing with both Hirschfeld’s theories of normal variation and Krafft-Ebing’s of pathology, Freud believed all were born with bisexual tendencies and therefore manifestations of homosexuality could be a normal phase of heterosexual development and an innate bisexuality allowed no possibility of a separate “third sex” constructed by Hirschfeld.  Nor could the “degenerative condition” described by von Krafft-Ebing be maintained because, inter alia, it was “found in people whose efficiency is unimpaired, and who are indeed distinguished by specially high intellectual development and ethical culture”.  That may amuse some now but, within Freudian theory, the internal logic is perfect, manifestations of adult homosexual behavior being caused by “arrested” psychosexual development, a theory of immaturity.

Yet, despite the interest aroused, after Freud’s death in 1939, most psychoanalysts came to view homosexuality as pathological and, in the massively expanded universities of the post-war years, research in the field exploded and sexology evolved from a professional niche to a well-funded discipline, the academic work increasingly augmented by popular publications aimed at the general reader as well as the profession.  By the mid-twentieth century, the intellectual centre of psychiatry had shifted from Europe to the United States and it was there that published what would quickly become the most influential publication in the field, the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).  When the first edition (DSM-I) was released in 1952, homosexuality was classified as a “sociopathic personality disturbance” and this was the orthodoxy until revised in the DSM-II in 1968 when the term changed to “sexual deviation”, a nuance probably better understood by the profession than the patients although "sexual deviant" became a popular phrase and one applied to many activities.

One implication of sexologists becoming more numerous and active was to change the very nature of research.  Whereas psychiatrists and other clinicians drew conclusions from a skewed sample of patients seeking treatment for homosexuality or other difficulties, sexologists undertook field studies for which were recruited large numbers of subjects in the general population, most of whom had never presented themselves for psychiatric treatment.  The most famous of the reports published both generated headlines and became best-sellers.  The Kinsey reports, with sample sizes in the thousands, found homosexuality to be more common in the general population than the psychiatrists had claimed although the often-quoted 10% “statistic” is now discredited and thought a significant over-estimate.  Ford and Beach, looking at both diverse cultures and animal behavior, confirmed Kinsey’s view that homosexuality was more common than psychiatry maintained and that it was found regularly in nature.  In a number of smaller surveys of which psychologist Evelyn Hooker’s was typical, no evidence was found to suggest gay men were any more prone to severe psychological disturbances than anyone else although some did concede the perception they were "highly strung" and "dramatic" was supported by observational studies but that may be influenced by depictions in popular culture and thus perhaps even "learned or imitative".

The wealth of research, coupled with an increasingly strident gay activism and generational changed within the APA induced change, the awareness now that the real psychological damage being done might be the stigma caused by the “homosexuality” diagnosis.  Nevertheless, in 1973 when the APA met to discuss the matter, planning both for a revised DSM II and the new DSM-III, it was pondered whether “homosexuality” should be included in the APA nomenclature.  Implicit in this was the very question of what could be said to constitute a mental disorder so it was a matter of importance beyond the immediate issue.  Not wishing fundamentally to change the parameters of diagnosis, the APA came up with a masterful fudge, issuing a statement saying they had “reviewed the characteristics of the various mental disorders and concluded that, with the exception of homosexuality and perhaps some of the other 'sexual deviations', they all regularly caused subjective distress or were associated with generalized impairment in social effectiveness of functioning”.  Happy with the loophole, the APA’s Board of Trustees (BoT) voted to remove homosexuality from the DSM.

Less happy were many clinicians who insisted on a vote of the whole membership.  The APA agreed and the decision to remove was upheld by a 58% majority of 10,000 voting members although technically, the question on which they voted was not whether homosexuality should remain a diagnosis but whether to support or oppose the BoT’s decision and, by extension, the scientific process created to make the determination.  It seemed a fine distinction and the BoT’s decision did anyway not immediately end psychiatry’s pathologizing of some presentations of homosexuality.  Instead, a revision to the DSM-II text contained a new diagnosis: "Sexual Orientation Disturbance" (SOD).  SOD (one does have to wonder if the condition was so-named as some sort of in-joke among the DSM's editors) defined homosexuality as an illness if an individual with same-sex attractions found them distressing and wanted to change, an important difference which changed the emphasis from condition to consequence.  That of course implied a future for what came to be known as sexual conversion therapy which has consequences of its own and, presumably, meant anyone unhappy with being heterosexual could seek treatment in an attempt to turn them gay.

SOD was replaced in DSM-III (1980) by a new category called “Ego Dystonic Homosexuality” (EDH) but it was increasingly obvious both SOD and EDH were political fudges to fix an immediate problem and it was not sustainable to maintain a diagnostic criteria under which any identity disturbance could be considered a psychiatric disorder.  The generational shift had happened and EDH was deleted from the revised DSM-III-R, in 1987.  Officially, the DSM now regarded homosexuality as a normal variant of the human condition, essentially what was thought in 1973 but couldn’t then be said.  It didn’t mean the end of debate but did mean those individuals and institutions determined still to discriminate could no longer cite a medical or scientific rationale.